I agree that with Aronofsky there was an obvious chance for greatness, but I find some directors to be a little too set in their own ways and opinions about things and I thought that there was an equal chance of getting something so muddled and odd that it wouldn't have worked well with audiences and only the most diehard of wolverine fans would have eaten it up.

This would of course kind of be okay since this is to be a stand alone film whose success is kind of moot since there would be no direct followup. And there have already been four movies heavily featuring wolverine.

I personally don't really care for wolverine as a stand alone character though. I don't like brooders. So me debating this is kind of pointless, I just think that Mangold is a decent enough director and doesn't deserve to be scoffed at like some people were doing. But other people share this opinion already so I don't need to push it further.

I agree that Thor, like Iron man 2 was a little divided by all the Avengers set up. Not as bad though.

and I have seen Brazil, I have seen nearly all of Gilliam's movies as I kept trying to give him a chance since he was so critically praised. But I do not enjoy his work. He relegates very gifted actors to props for his overly cluttered composition and while most of his movies like Brazil start off strong (the satirical first half is brilliant) he tends to lose any and all humanity by painstakingly trying to control everything. I remember one actor saying that he was much more concerned with a rat running in a wheel somewhere in the background than the actor who was having an emotional scene.

This is the problem I have with artistic diretors being given too much control sometimes, and with the title being "The" wolverine, I just though there was a significant chance for the director to bring too much of his own sensibilities to the table rather than paying attention to the character. Title just sounded a bit pretentious to me.But I have not seen more than two of Aronofsky's movies so I can't judge him to harshly. I was at the very least curious to see what he would do.

The thing about Nolan is, his movies are fairly straightforward(apart from Memento's structure, lol) in comparison to Darren A's films.
Unlike with Nolan, there is nothing in Darren's portfolio that suggests what his take on a straightforward action movie like 'The Wolverine' would have been like, because, no matter how you slice it, no matter how much you want to bang on about his struggle with the animal within, it will turn out to be a mostly action based film, with a love story at the centre. It is still a mainstream superhero movie, and there is only so much weight it can bear.

Nolan made two studo crime thrillers before Batman, whereas DA likes to make movies that he can lean on heavily with as much art as he can muster, ie real life films that can take their time and have the scope to explore the depths of the human condition.

Nolan's studio films are all pretty mainstream in comparison, so I think the Ang Lee comparison is more apt.
What Ang Lee made the mistake of doing was bringing far too much weight onto the Hulk story than it could bear, and we got a movie that not many people could get involved in as a result.

I don't think that is what would have happened here, I like to think that Darren would have reigned it in, and just made sure he got the best performances out of the actors, got down the striking visuals, and stuck to McQuairrie's script, without altering it to a degree of pretention that could have turned the movie into a bit of a joke, like the Ang Hulk film.

edit: But, y'know, he might have ****ed it up in some way too, we might have got some over ponderous movie with Wolverine sitting around meditating in lotus gardens while going into dream sequences about his animal side, before going into an action scene that is too scared to cut loose for fear of being common. ie it could have been overbearingly smart arse to the point of stupidity, where the artist can't dial back his skillset for the appropriate story, like Ang Hulk, although he did get the action sceens down very well, until he went with the overdone pretention in the finale, and we got a truly wtf motion painting ending in a Hulk movie of all things.

Go out and rent The Wrestler and Black Swan. Both characters in those films are synonymous with Logan's existential condition.

The journey and struggle that he put them on, both characters and actors, would alone make for an amazing Wolverine movie - which I'm pretty sure is why Jackman was so excited about recruiting Darren.

I know you liked Origins, Nell, but its such a misrepresentation of the character. A Wolverine film should be character-driven. Not popcorn-driven.

Aye, it is all very well pointing to those films, and saying that he would be a guaranteed shoo in to nail the film, but as I was saying, with these types of films(I have only seen Pi, RFAD, the Fountain and the Wrestler), he does not have to find a balance between that adult, existential tone and the hyper realistic world of mainstream comic book superheroes, with all the restrictions that always apply to these franchise characters.

The Wrestler was like a documentary, and MR's down to Earth performance went a long way in letting us just rest easy and watch a man go through his last days.
An approach that would not work whatsoever in a Wolverine film, not only would DA have his work cut out for him by having such creative avenues cut off from him, but having to deal with the restrictions of having to keep his lead character within the conservative confines of a mainstream franchise that has to include a younger audience.

You might want your 'art house' Wolverine movie, and so do I, but there has to be popcorn moments in there, or else the movie is not doing it's job.
The existential drama can't be too heavy with Wolverine either, let's get real here, the Claremont book is good, but it doesn't go much deeper than a lonely guy with anger management problems, and it can't really because he is a mainstream superhero, and there is restrictions on what you are allowed to do with such a character.
You can't have him doing truly self destructive things like ****ed up human beings do when they are going through a period of losing their minds and identity in their lives, as you would see in a regular DA film, he'd still have to hit this and that hero mark, as they do in all of these mainstream sh flicks.

Sometimes 'necessity is the mother of invention' and all that, but other times when the artist finds himself cut off from his usual avenues of creativity, he ends up making an artistic compromise without meaning to, where the film is neither a great character piece, or popcorn munching mash up of an action film.

Like, DA might have a great idea for what Wolverine would do nest given where his character is at , 'Yeah, he would go nuts here and completely trash the bar, scaring all the patrons..'(or whatever), and then someone steps in from Marvel and say, 'Em, you can't do that, that's kind of like what a super-villan would do, we are in the business of superheroes...' So, DA's ideas are too much for the character to bear and his other idea that fits within the restrictions, is not that great an idea...

I dunno, I'm just hypothesising that there is no guarantee he would have made the great Wolverine movie, he may well might have, but there is nothing in his portfolio to suggest what kind of film he would have made. Some moments in the Wrestler, aye, for sure, but, that was a large canvas upon which to work, no limits, with this type of deal all there are are very strict limits.

Maybe that is what he was starting to feel, and that’s why he walked, and i'm not talking just about studio interferance, but the fact that his usual canvas was going to be very small and with a limited pallette, something he had not dealt with before, and he may well have felt the artistic sensibilities he had developed would have been limited to the point of being negligible.

I think you may have misinterpreted Episode29, but I'll leave it up to him to elaborate.

Correct-o.

As for whether Aronofsky is capable of toning down his artsier sensibilities, I'm sure he's more than capable. He has expressed an interest in making more mainstream films in the past. He was attached to direct a new RoboCop forever. His next film, Noah, is being pitched as an expensive event film.

I dunno, at this point in the game, I'd rather watch a brilliant and ambitious director tackle a superhero movie and do something interesting than watch another middle-of-the-road effort that hits all the expected beats and doesn't try for anything bold and daring. Even if he failed - like Ang Lee did - his failure would likely be more fascinating and memorable than many of the B-level efforts churned out by safe directors.

Plus, Fox knows fans hate Wolverine. Hugh Jackman knows it. Both adore Aronofsky. They would have been more than open to letting him take chances if they thought he could save the Wolverine franchise.

As for whether Aronofsky is capable of toning down his artsier sensibilities, I'm sure he's more than capable. He has expressed an interest in making more mainstream films in the past. He was attached to direct a new RoboCop forever. His next film, Noah, is being pitched as an expensive event film.

I dunno, at this point in the game, I'd rather watch a brilliant and ambitious director tackle a superhero movie and do something interesting than watch another middle-of-the-road effort that hits all the expected beats and doesn't try for anything bold and daring. Even if he failed - like Ang Lee did - his failure would likely be more fascinating and memorable than many of the B-level efforts churned out by safe directors.

Plus, Fox knows fans hate Wolverine. Hugh Jackman knows it. Both adore Aronofsky. They would have been more than open to letting him take chances if they thought he could save the Wolverine franchise.

Robocop is an R rated/18 cert film franchise. He would have had a helluva lot more freedom with that movie, yet still he walked away from that one too. We don't know the exact circumstances of why he walked from both franchises despite what the press releases say.

I want to see whoever makes the best Wolverine film, I don't care what lofty aims the director had if he misses the mark, Ang Lee's Hulk sits on my shelf unwatched for many a year now. Aye, it is fascinating to see such a highly regarded filmaker miss the mark, as in getting to see in what way he did so. But that doesn't always make the film fascinating or memorable as a piece of art per se, it can be more of an interesting turn of events, that just goes to show you can hire someone who looks like they would do no wrong artistically, and they churn out a creative turkey. Same with Bryan Singer and Superman Returns.

McQuarrie has apparently written a very good script, if Mangold pulls off his best game, Copland, 3:10 to Yuma, then we could have that great Wolverine movie. He could have strengths in this field of commercial action films that Arfonofsky lacks. It may not be along the lines so much as reigning in your arty fartyness, as much as not being afriad to go down the more common avenue of the heroic tale when it suits the story better.
Like, choosing to pursue the 'man on the run seeking a cure' story of the Hulk, rather than a family psychodrama dealing with repressed memories.

I do think that when it comes to film, people can be quite snobby about strengths in certain areas that some filmakers have.
Whereas in the field of music, it seems that the more arty people recognise the strengths that the more commercial musicians have, and don't turn their nose up at them. Nick Cave doesn't give a **** about what genre you belong to, he'll ask Kylie Minogue to sing on a song of his cause he likes some of her records, and the record might turn out better than had he asked PJ Harvey to sing on it, as he can recognise she has a certain something that is suitable for that particular piece.

I just don't see any evidence that Darren A would have definitely made a better Wolverine film than JM, as a lot of people here seem to think.

With Copland in particular, I do see some evidence that JM could pull off a good meditative character led hero film, along the lines of the CC/FM book. just as, as AB was saying, there is evidence in The Wrestler that DA could have made a great Wolveinre character piece too.

Also, I just had a thought, let's say Darren Arfonofsky *had* made a foray into mainstream Hollywood action movies, and the result was Copland.
Do you guys think there is any chance you would be sat here now saying 'Darren's one foray into mainstream action resulted in not only him persuading Slyvester Stallone to drop the muscle and lay on the fat, and got the best acting performance out of him since his Oscar nominated turn in Rocky, but also subverted the typical Hollywood action finale but having no sound bar the ringing of tinnitus being heard by the lead character.'

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I wouldn't have chosen Darren Arfonofsky myself as director, I would have, all I'm saying is that it's not such a sure thing he would have pulled off a great Wolverine movie.

Go out and rent The Wrestler and Black Swan. Both characters in those films are synonymous with Logan's existential condition.

The journey and struggle that he put them on, both characters and actors, would alone make for an amazing Wolverine movie - which I'm pretty sure is why Jackman was so excited about recruiting Darren.
I know you liked Origins, Nell, but its such a misrepresentation of the character. A Wolverine film should be character-driven. Not popcorn-driven.

Eh, I don't see how it wasn't character driven. Everything leading up to Weapon X, and even a chunk of it after Weapon X, was all about Logan, the relationships he built with people, and then those relationships being taken from him.

But it's also a comic book, and as Thebumwhowalks seemed to imply, I think that some people are overestimating the deepness of a comic book story. It's still Weapon X, it's still Wolverine v. Sabretooth, it's about scientists experimenting on him, and them him raging on them afterwords. Now, I know a lot of people had a problem with Logan's lack of berserker rage in the movie, but I really didn't take issue with it. There were certainly some aspects of the movie I didn't like, but overall, I really never understood why people hate it so much.

One of the things that I love so much about the movie is that I feel it focuses on Logan, and his relationships with both Kayla and the Hudsons so much, and gives those relationships time to build and breathe. We get 45 minutes of that before we get into our first big action sequence, which is the helicopter chase. After that, sure I'll admit the movie loses a bit of focus and kinda ends up all over the place, but the first half of that movie alone give it a lot of heart. And while the 2nd half bounces around a bit, I don't think that it ever loses focus of what his motives are.

Sure, it's not a character piece the likes of The Godfather or Citizen Kane or something, but it's a comic book movie, it's not supposed to be.

I pride my favorite movies on having a certain level of character focus as well, except for certain circumstances, I'm not really impressed by non-character driven action films (although oddly enough, with the whole Aronofsky conversation, I get turned off by movies that become -too- artsy as well, I have a particular medium that I look for). That's why I love X-Men in general, because there is a good focus on character, and what I consider to be a great foundation for the world these characters live in, and I thought that X-Men Origins: Wolverine matched that. To this day, I still don't get why people are so upset with the film.

I'd say the problem when it came to XMWO being character led was it was far too truncated.
We see them as kids, and then bam, they are in the wars, but, bam, it is just for the opening credits, then bam, they are in Stryker's mutant team.

We didn't get to see them bond as brothers, or come to terms with the fact they are mutants, we are just left to assume what happened there.

It was as if they were in a hurry to get to the X-Men 2 stuff with Stryker, as if that was all the audience wanted, to see the blanks being painted in for that story we got the gist of already.

I'm not saying we should have gotten a massive time spanning movie like Once Upon a time in america, although that would have been a frickin amazing Wolverine origins movie, lol, but we should have gotten a helluva lot more than that.

They skip through the time periods and character development between the brothers in order to get to the Stryker stuff, so the whole aspect of them being guys who don't age normally, and have lived through the ages is totally irrelevant. With the story told, they might as well have aged normally, so they did not take advantage of the storytelling potential with that fantasy aspect, which would have been very interesting indeed.

I mean, I was very excited when seeing the initial trailers with Wolverine in the Civil War and Vietnam, and then all we get of that is an opening credit sequence?! They could have had a great opening half hour with all of that stuff, seeing pivotal moments in their lives over the course of the early part of the century, or even the first hour, and had the Stryker stuff in the last hour and twenty minutes or whatever.

Eh, I don't see how it wasn't character driven. Everything leading up to Weapon X, and even a chunk of it after Weapon X, was all about Logan, the relationships he built with people, and then those relationships being taken from him. But it's also a comic book, and as Thebumwhowalks seemed to imply, I think that some people are overestimating the deepness of a comic book story.

That's a poor mentality to have towards the genre. It basically implies that because these films are based on comic books that they shouldn't be serious/intelligent pictures with any depth.

Bryan Singer went into the genre with the complete opposite set of ideals, which Christopher Nolan drove home with TDK.

This genre is very capable of quality material.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

It's still Weapon X, it's still Wolverine v. Sabretooth, it's about scientists experimenting on him, and them him raging on them afterwords. Now, I know a lot of people had a problem with Logan's lack of berserker rage in the movie, but I really didn't take issue with it. There were certainly some aspects of the movie I didn't like, but overall, I really never understood why people hate it so much.

Nell, you defend Origins and X3 alot on these forums despite the very general consensus of them by others here, and while I can agree that X3 isn't the horrific film its made out to be by most in the comics community, I really can't say the same about Origins.

Let me clarify that I don't dislike Origins because I'm a comic book fan or because it didn't satisfy my thirst for blood and gore. As a movie, not just as a comic book movie, but as a movie in general, its a really bad movie.

I hate to have to use RT for reference, but 37% says it all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

One of the things that I love so much about the movie is that I feel it focuses on Logan, and his relationships with both Kayla and the Hudsons so much, and gives those relationships time to build and breathe.

While the movie does indeed focus on Logan, it gives us no reason to care about Logan [besides our prior encounters with him in the trilogy].

All the moments prior to Weapon X that could have made for great emotional drama are wasted on an opening sequence that turns the Origin comic into a 3 minute scene and 150 years of war into a credits montage.

*Gavin Hood spoke of how they had a sequence during the Civil War where the brothers find themselves to be the only survivors of that particular battle shaping them as men now that they know they're impervious to damage.

Obviously that scene wasn't explosive enough to have in the movie.

*In another sequence that never saw the light of day, [Captain] Creed tells the men on his U-Boat in Normandy right before they hit the beach "That they're all gonna die" with a tasty grin on his face.

All those important beats that would have actually developed the brothers were excised in favor of an "epic" montage which does nothing more than suggest one man embraces his animal nature and the other doesn't. Maybe if the rest of the film wasn't an absolute departure from common sense, that would have worked a little better.

His relationship with Kayla was okay, really didn't need more work, but again is completely thrown in the trash can once she reveals her ridiculous intentions for betraying Logan (I literally almost left the theatre when she started saying "They have my Sister!!!!!" over and over again ).

As for The Hudsons. Nell, have you ever seen this movie?

They ripped out that ENTIRE concept from Superman: The Movie and I'm almost 100% it was because Donner himself became involved with the film. It is the absolute worst homage to a movie ever made, not to mention Jackman's dialogue and acting take a massive collapse during those scenes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

We get 45 minutes of that before we get into our first big action sequence, which is the helicopter chase. After that, sure I'll admit the movie loses a bit of focus and kinda ends up all over the place, but the first half of that movie alone give it a lot of heart. And while the 2nd half bounces around a bit, I don't think that it ever loses focus of what his motives are.

The character's motives were pretty simple and they still somehow managed to mess them up massively.

There were too many ways to get the above before the bold right. They failed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

Sure, it's not a character piece the likes of The Godfather or Citizen Kane or something, but it's a comic book movie, it's not supposed to be.

Again, you should demand more from your movies and expect the best when it comes to characters you loved long before they were adapted into film properties.

Wolverine got quality treatment from Bryan Singer in an X-Men film. He deserved quality treatment in his own film.

The comic book genre hasn't been a "B" genre for over a decade. Unfortunately some producers in Hollywood still think it is and we get crap like Ghost Rider, Green Lantern, Punisher War Zone and X-Men Origins.

Ironically those same producers make so much less than those that approach the genre with respect and creativity

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

I pride my favorite movies on having a certain level of character focus as well, except for certain circumstances, I'm not really impressed by non-character driven action films (although oddly enough, with the whole Aronofsky conversation, I get turned off by movies that become -too- artsy as well, I have a particular medium that I look for). That's why I love X-Men in general, because there is a good focus on character, and what I consider to be a great foundation for the world these characters live in, and I thought that X-Men Origins: Wolverine matched that. To this day, I still don't get why people are so upset with the film.

Nell, you're entitled to enjoy Origins as is everyone else who did, but I gotta ask, are you really gonna say Origins matched the level of its precursors?

Man, I did not know about those planned scenes for during the wars, that is really annoying they did not put them in there.

On one or two of your points though....Wolverine only thinks the life was not real once he got the revelation, he then finds out from her that she did indeed love him, despite the relationship being set up initially under duress.

and on that note, I don't see why her motivation for betraying Logan was ridiculous, as she was promised her sister's release, as opposed her being killed after being experimented on.

and they did that in the books, gave us the story about Sabretooth killing silver Fox, and then later on revealing that she was not killed at all.
Logan still has plenty of beef with his borther though, he was in on the whole plot to have him experimented on and have his memories wiped to be a weapon for the governbment, and of course we have the scene where ST is actually threatening to kill SF for real, with Snyder not giving a sh** now she has served her purpose. It's her scream that leads Logan back to the lab.

I agree that the scenes with the farmers are the worst in the film, last time I watched the movie I did my washing during those scenes. They are nigh on unwatchable, that farmer's first rustic utterance of the classic 'Yip!' is the worst 'Yip' i have ever heard in the history of mankind, it is very funny as a result.

There are some very wonky storytelling devices in the film, and massive potential missed, but I can still watch it as half the movie it should have been, like X-Men 3.
I don't think they compare to the first two X-Men films at all though.
and normally I should be watching a Wolverine origins movie every couple of weeks, like i did when i got Batman Begins and Spider-man 1 on dvd, instead of every few months because I have worn out watching the good X-men films, and feel like seeing some more live action X-Men.
It is a movie that pisses me off, but I can still enjoy the good parts of it, as i outlined in the unpopular opinions thread.

Man, I did not know about those planned scenes for during the wars, that is really annoying they did not put them in there.

There's a good film buried underneath all the junk they aimed at the kids. We'll probably never see it which is why I'm so adamant about the next film being at least a proper Wolverine movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thebumwhowalks

On one or two of your points though....Wolverine only thinks the life was not real once he got the revelation, he then finds out from her that she did indeed love him, despite the relationship being set up initially under duress.

and on that note, I don't see why her motivation for betraying Logan was ridiculous, as she was promised her sister's release, as opposed her being killed after being experimented on.

and they did that in the books, gave us the story about Sabretooth killing silver Fox, and then later on revealing that she was not killed at all.
Logan still has plenty of beef with his borther though, he was in on the whole plot to have him experimented on and have his memories wiped to be a weapon for the governbment, and of course we have the scene where ST is actually threatening to kill SF for real, with Snyder not giving a sh** now she has served her purpose. It's her scream that leads Logan back to the lab.

The problem wasn't the actual story. It was the storytelling.

I love the idea of a man betrayed and fooled into becoming a living weapon for the military (Manchurian Candidate being a prime example of how great that kinda story can be).

Kayla's motivations, and Stryker's were what pretty much brought down the house, not to mention how they executed it onscreen.

I woulda been happy with Kayla doing it all for the sake of being bad. Seriously. It woulda been better than "they have my Sister!!!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thebumwhowalks

I agree that the scenes with the farmers are the worst in the film, last time I watched the movie I did my washing during those scenes. They are nigh on unwatchable, that farmer's first rustic utterance of the classic 'Yip!' is the worst 'Yip' i have ever heard in the history of mankind, it is very funny as a result.

The first thing I thought when I saw the Hudsons was "Oh my God. They're really gonna do this. Donner is a producer for Christ's sake!"

If you're gonna make a tribute to his Superman movie, make it good. Or at least don't rip it straight out of the film. The Hudsons were basically Ma and Pa Kent just instead of useful to the story, they were completely irrelevant to the plot.

To make the acquisition of his jacket a big deal in the Wolverine lore made me wanna scream. Its a jacket. Who cares how he got it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thebumwhowalks

There are some very wonky storytelling devices in the film, and massive potential missed, but I can still watch it as half the movie it should have been, like X-Men 3.
I don't think they compare to the first two X-Men films at all though.
and normally I should be watching a Wolverine origins movie every couple of weeks, like i did when i got Batman Begins and Spider-man 1 on dvd, instead of every few months because I have worn out watching the good X-men films, and feel like seeing some more live action X-Men.
It is a movie that pisses me off, but I can still enjoy the good parts of it, as i outlined in the unpopular opinions thread.

All of the stuff with Schreiber was good. They treated his character the best and since the guy's a heck of an actor, he shines despite his terrible surroundings. Creed's arc was handled the way they should have handled Logan's. Proper development and a clear defining motivation for the character.

Logan just wanted peace. He didn't find it. But yet somehow he ended up in Three Mile Island fighting Deadpool WITH HIS BROTHER.

There goes the whole movie. That alone destroys the one thing that made the movie remotely interesting.

Aye, I can see that you are a big Wolverine fan, and also, were one of the few who were defending the Jackman interpretation, in the two good films, in that badass thread.
I thought Origins might have been a return to form as they had hired an art house director, and had great material to draw from, but alas...we got another X-Men 3.

I guess i have just learned not to let it bother me so much somehow, as I know we got two very good ones already, and y'know, back in the late ninties when it was announced they were defo doing a live action X-Men, even though BS was doing it, I did not think we would get such a good live action interpretation, HJ really blew me away.
So, I guess I am still relived and a bit flabbergasted that we did actually get two v good Wolverine films, and I do enjoy his stuff in X-Men 3, he has some great moments, even in that film.

There is hope the next film will be a vast improvement, with McQuarrie doing the scripting, the comic it being based on being great source material, Chris Claremont giving his approval to the script, and Mangold being a solid director, I think we have a good chance of it being as good as the first two films.

Man wow, I just have a totally different interpretation of the entire movie then, I guess that's why it settles with me.

Another reason why it probably settles better with me is that I must admit, I haven't read the Weapon X comic books. It is, however, at the top of my list of trades to buy. My familiarity with the Weapon X story comes mostly from how it was adapted in the cartoon series, along with various versions I have seen in different mediums, as well as what was foreshadowed in X-Men and X2, as well as knowledge of the story that I have gotten through talking to people and my own personal research. So on that level, I think I went into the movie with different expectations altogether. Also, in terms of the lack of violence thing, I was looking at this movie as a prequel to the X-Men version of Logan, which is very much PG-13, as opposed to the rated R version of the solo character.

I do admit I was rather disappointed that the war scenes were condensed into a credits montage. There was a lot of good footage from the wars that was shown in trailers, TV spots, and other promo material, and I was expecting more from that. That said, I can accept what was done. For a credits montage, I thought it was well executed and got the point across well. Even though there wasn't much exploration into the brotherly relationship between James and Victor, when they eventually split, I never really felt like "wow, and I'm supposed to care because?" It worked for me. You mentioning it is really the first time I've thought that they weren't developed well enough.

Now onto something that Thebumwhowalks stated - the whole Silverfox thing is exactly how I remember it from the animated series, and apparently according to him it's what happens in the comics too. Silverfox "dies", but comes back having never really been dead, and it was a plot all along. That all sounds like classic Weapon X plot points to me, and I thought it was handled well.

As far as her motives, her motives were fine to me, and here's a point where I think interpretations differ. My interpretation of the film is that Logan and Kayla were legitimately together, and when Stryker came back into town, and Logan refused him, that's when all the circumstances of Kayla's sister came to be. I believe that they captured her sister, and made her go through with this plan, when they were in love legitimately from the start. The scene where Stryker is explaining all of that to him, Kayla motions as though she is going to tell that to Logan, but Stryker threatens her with the gun. And here is my biggest complaint with the movie - I think the original mind erase sequence puts everything together so much better, but they cut it out, and make the adamantium bullets come across as a really horrid plot device. But with the original mind erase sequence, the adamantium bullets actually make sense, and have a place in the story.

As far as the Hudsons go, I think that's where interpretations are also different. Where you see bad nod to Donner's Superman, I see elements of the story taken right from the source material. As I know the story, after Logan goes through Weapon X and escapes, the Hudsons (who in the comics are actually part of Alpha Flight) take Logan in and care for him while he heals and recovers from what happened. And I see that as exactly what's going on in the movie. They're just old people instead of young Canadian superheroes. That's why that's one of my favorite aspects of the movie, because it's the story as I've always known it growing up being brought to life right in front of me.

There was another point that you made, about the movie relying on the previous trilogy for it's character development of Logan, and I think there's a bit of just cause to that. While X-Men Origins: Wolverine is an origin tale, it still exists in the same universe as the trilogy, and as such, the character development over the course of 3 movies plays a part. I really do feel that if they spent too much time rehashing Logan's character in that regard, it'd get tedious. We've seen it 3 times before. We know who this character is. It's part of the reason why I accept X-Men: The Last Stand and regard it so highly, despite it's overall lack of character development. The characters were developed over 2 movies previous. If X-Men: The Last Stand was the first movie of the series, instead of the 3rd, I'd probably have much more issue with it. But I already knew who these characters were and what they were about from 2 previous movies. It also helps that I feel the characters who were truly important to the story were handled well. I think McKellen's Magneto was brilliant, as always, and while many think that Jean Grey got shafted, I thought the creative take they took with Phoenix being an alternate personality rather than a space entity made her a much more interesting and tragic character. I'm not gonna lie, and I know this may be regarded as blasphemy around here, but how she was portrayed in X-Men: The Last Stand made her one of my favorite characters in the trilogy. I'll admit there could have been more, and a lot of her lack of action in the final battle is explained rather well in 2 deleted scenes that for some reason didn't make it, but I found a real sense of interest in how they explored her character. The way they handled Phoenix was, in my humble (and probably not so popular) opinion, one of the really better things about the movie.

But back to X-Men Origins: Wolverine - I think there's something to be said for letting the prior 3 movies development be considered in this movie. We already know who Logan is. I didn't need to see a bunch of exposition into his character. But that seems to be one of the areas where my interpretation of the film is vastly different from everyone else's.

As far as the other large subject of contention - my feelings towards the treatment of "comic books" on film - there really are 2 sides to that coin.

No, comic books are not just mindless dribble with no depth, character, heart, or intelligence. My favorite fiction is X-Men, so obviously I find something worthwhile.

But let's be real here. Whether it's right, wrong, or just the way things are, comic book literature is never going to be held in the same regard as actual literature. And while I vastly appreciate Bryan Singer's take on the X-Men universe (I think his character driven take was ideal for the franchise), even his most character driven X-Men film isn't ever going to be held in the same regards as movies like The Godfather or something of that caliber. Even the most highly regarded comic book film, The Dark Knight, doesn't get that kind of esteem. It took the death of an actor who gave an INCREDIBLE performance for a comic book film to finally get an Oscar nod in acting.

I love superheroes (even though X-Men is really the only one I am a fan of), and X-Men is my favorite thing in fiction. I love the X-Men world and everything it represents. But even I'm not going to sit here with delusions of grandeur that these are some remarkable works of literature that are going to go down in the canon of English writing. While there are definite layers of depth, character, and heart to comic books and comic book stories, there is also a big level of simplicity to them as well, and an aspect of bright colors and fantastic displays of superhero powers. X-Men included. And while I certainly haven't read every X-Men tale that's been written in comic book form, I do have a box sitting beside me right now with hundreds of X-Men comics, and a bookshelf full of X-Men trades. The genre isn't mindless by any means, but they are still very simple and fun in many regards.

I will say, there is one area where I agree with you on. X-Men Origins: Wolverine works for me because I see it as part of the PG-13 universe of the X-Men - it's an origin tale of how Logan becomes the X-Man known as Wolverine. X-Men Wolverine is very PG-13, whereas solo Wolverine is the R rated version. The "softer" portrayal of the character in X-Men Origins: Wolverine works for me because it's essentially the PG-13 version of the character.

The Wolverine will have no ties to the PG-13 X-Men world. It IS solo Wolverine in his own element. This is the R-rated version of the character. While the movie itself doesn't necessarily have to be rated R, the brutality definitely needs to increase. The Wolverine doesn't need to be kid friendly, and if it is, even I will acknowledge that they failed. I still may find the movie good... but a soft Wolverine won't be good.

That said, I can only hope that my post is taken with honest intentions. I certainly don't agree with your point of view, but you certainly bring up some interesting points in regards to these movies. These are the kinds of conversations and debates that I enjoy. In the end, I think it comes down to we just have vastly different interpretations of the work itself.

Yeah, see back in the early ninties, they used to run Wolverine stories in Marvel comics Presents...the anthology title, you got the initial introduction to Madripoor there, and Black Shadow/White shadow, both v good Wolverine stories.
But, the rest of the comic was garbage, you were paying full price for 8 pages of Wolverine.

So, when they decided to run the Weapon X story in MCP I got so pissed off I refused to buy the comic anymore, it was an important origin story, and I felt it should have run in the regular monthly, so as a protest I didn't buy the comic, lol, only time I have ever done that.

So, I've still not read it, but from what I understand from references to it in other Wolverine stories, Logan was in an mute animal state during his escape from the facility.
When he encountered the Hudsons in the wilderness he was still in that state, and they nursed him back to a human state of being.

so it was a very different encounter than that of the farmers in XMOW, I don't even equate that sequence with what happened with the Hudsons, it's so different.

and as the Silver fox thing, Nell, if you have not read the classic Wolverine issue 10, I suggest you go out and buy one of the trade paperbacks, the first 16 issues of Wolverine are one of my all time fav runs of any comic book series, this being one of the highlights. and there are many great issues after that, here and there, but those first 16 issues are 100% quality sh storytelling. You need to read those first ten issues of MCP as a prequel though, not totally necesarry , but they are also collected in trade pb.

Anyway....after we got that story told in flashback about Sabretooth and Logan's great rivalry beginning over the death of Silver Fox, it is revealed much later on that it was part of one of the fake memories implanted into Logan, and she is alive and well. So, quite different from the movie plot, but still, similar in the fact that we and Logan are led to believe that ST killed her, and it later turns out not to be the case.

Yea, I mean the details are different, but I feel the spirit of the story is the same.

And what you're talking about with the Hudsons is essentially what happened in the cartoons too. But again, details are different, but I feel the spirit is the same.

Same way William Stryker was never the one in the comics to experiment on Logan, and Stryker wasn't a General, but a reverend. Details are different, spirit is the same.

Yea, my top trades right now are the Wolverine: Weapon X trade, and The Wolverine Japan trade. I like to at the very least collect the trades that the movies were based on (i.e.: I currently own God Loves, Man Kills and The Dark Phoenix because they were adapted in the movies).

I got the CC/FM Japan trade paperback back when I was still at school, about 1990/91, I lent it out though about 15 or so years ago, and never got it back. I read it a lot back then, hell, my friend and I even recorded a song on his dad's home studio called 'Logan' where we came up with a backing track of music, and my friend just read and sang out the first few pages of the story over it, with Logan climbing up that mountain, and amazingly it went perfectly with it, lol.
I need to replace it though, I am dying to read it again.

If you are interested in the comics the movies are based off of though, you need to get a copy of Wolverine no 10, of course it's in the Essentials, but it's also in one of those full colour Wolverine trades. It has the story on the Logan/St/SF thing, and is an all time classic, the moment when Logan confronts ST in the bar is lifted straight from the comic.

edit: i don't recall offahnd what comics the Hudson's story was originally told in, I'm pretty sure it was told in an X-Men comic, it was years before that Weapon X story. I read the gist of it in vol 1 of 'The Wolverine Saga', those prose books with accompaning panels that filled you in on his long history. normally i would have just tracked down the comics, but back in those days they did not have trades for everything and some back isses would have been difficult and expensive to track down, so I just bought that volume to fill in the gaps.

edit: Actually, from memory, it might well have been told in a couple of issues of Alpha Flight. If i find my Wolverine Saga vol 1 I will type up what issues it's on on this post.

I got the CC/FM Japan trade paperback back when I was still at school, about 1990/91, I lent it out though about 15 or so years ago, and never got it back. I read it a lot back then, hell, my friend and I even recorded a song on his dad's home studio called 'Logan' where we came up with a backing track of music, and my friend just read and sang out the first few pages of the story over it, with Logan climbing up that mountain, and amazingly it went perfectly with it, lol.
I need to replace it though, I am dying to read it again.

If you are interested in the comics the movies are based off of though, you need to get a copy of Wolverine no 10, of course it's in the Essentials, but it's also in one of those full colour Wolverine trades. It has the story on the Logan/St/SF thing, and is an all time classic, the moment when Logan confronts ST in the bar is lifted straight from the comic.

edit: i don't recall offahnd what comics the Hudson's story was originally told in, I'm pretty sure it was told in an X-Men comic, it was years before that Weapon X story. I read the gist of it in vol 1 of 'The Wolverine Saga', those prose books with accompaning panels that filled you in on his long history. normally i would have just tracked down the comics, but back in those days they did not have trades for everything and some back isses would have been difficult and expensive to track down, so I just bought that volume to fill in the gaps.

All I know is that in the cartoons, Logan escapes from Weapon X, and is pretty much feral, like you said, and the Hudsons find him and nurse him back to health. Because of their help, he looks towards them and feels them he owes them a debt of gratitude.

Because of that, he lets the husband live when Alpha Flight comes calling to take him back. He does it for her.

I dunno, obviously details are changed, but in spirit, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is the same damn story that I knew growing up. That's why I love the movie so much, I thought it captured how I always remembered the movie rather well. Flawed, sure, but still overall a successful translation in my book. I thought it respected both the source material and what was set up in the previous movies rather well.

I would have liked to have seen Logan reduced to some kind of feral state though, and working through it as the movie progressed.
They stuck to the basics and rushed through a lot of the story, including the whole adamantium bonding process, but aye, it is a movie, so you will get a condensed version of the books, but still, it didn't have to be *that* rushed.

I know some fans took issue with the fact that Logan volunteered for the process, as opposed to being subjected to it in the comics, but that doesn't bother me so much, as he volunteered under false pretences, so there is still that thing of them having 'done this' to him.